Riddler - Solutions to Castles Puzzle: castle-solutions-2.csv
Data license: CC Attribution 4.0 License · Data source: fivethirtyeight/data on GitHub · About: simonw/fivethirtyeight-datasette
902 rows sorted by Castle 8
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 2, Castle 3, Castle 4
Link | rowid | Castle 1 | Castle 2 | Castle 3 | Castle 4 | Castle 5 | Castle 6 | Castle 7 | Castle 8 ▼ | Castle 9 | Castle 10 | Why did you choose your troop deployment? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 27 | Near optimal integer program vs previous round: beats 1068 of them. |
7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 32 | 28 to win. Looked like castles 4,5,9,10 got less troops allocated to them per value than other spots last go around. Didn't bother putting troops anywhere else. Also wanted to be one greater than round numbers like 15 or 30. |
18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 36 | Variation on the heavily commit to undervalued top castles, try to steal two smaller ones, and ignore everywhere else. Went for 4 and 5 rather than 6 and 3 or 7 and 2, because people during last battle really committed to 6, 7, and 8 |
19 | 19 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 0 | 32 | 32 | Gambit strategy that preys on anyone who uses balanced troop distribution. This would have failed in the first iteration of the game, but I predict the metagame shifts towards more normal-looking strategies which will get beaten by this one. |
21 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 23 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 27 | This setup beat 1071 of the 1387 past strategies (found by integer programming) |
44 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 24 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 30 | Focus on smallest number of castles that can win. Also people seem to understaffed castle 10 so include this in lineup |
56 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 22 | 29 | 0 | 6 | 22 | I made an algorithm that weighted the placement 75% based on what would beat all submissions from last competition and 25% based on what would beat those placements. |
77 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 33 | variant of first strat. Looking for 5 wins instead of 4 by focusing on 3 and 6 instead of the pricier 9. Gave a couple more to 10 as well. avoided 8. |
85 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | You only need 28 points to win, so we will focus on winning 10, 6, 5, 4, and 3 (total 28), sending troops proportional to the point totals (rounding down for #10 since people doing complicated things are more likely to concede #10). Going all-in on a linear strategy is often good in a situation where a large part of the field is trying to out-metagame each other. This may be the situation this time since the data from the last challenge was posted! |
88 | 88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 34 | need a total of 28 to win a battle. concentration of forces into a few strong holds and abandon all others. this will be clearly fail against a more balanced strategy if I loose castle 6 or 5 (assumption is I would win 10 and 9 against a balanced strategy). a tie in castle 5 with wins in the other 3 leads to an overall tie. I thought of adding more to 5 & 6 - even to the point of completely balancing across the 4 but I think that would be a risk against anyone using a strategy similar to mine. it's really an all or nothing approach. curious so see what happens. |
103 | 103 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | Intuitiveness |
193 | 193 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 34 | designed a plan that would beat the last winner hoping that lots of people would mindlessly copy him |
196 | 196 | 15 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 25 | You only need 28 points to win, so I tried to focus on getting specific castles and not bothering to protect other castles. |
200 | 200 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 30 | Something of an "all eggs in one basket" strategy. Looking at how players split up their troops last time round, I invested enough troops to more-or-less guarantee winning the 10, 6, 5, 4 and 3 castles which give me 28 points, a bare majority of the 55 (I only need to win by one point!) Then I've distributed the left-over soldiers to try and pick up the odd nine-point castle (which oddly enough doesn't seem that keenly fought over), which in conjunction with taking the one or two-pointer means I don't need to win the ten-pointer. |
270 | 270 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 6 | Intuition |
279 | 279 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | _™_àŠ—ŠÈä´Ù |
328 | 328 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 22 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 38 | Try to hit 28 by winning on 4 numbers. |
333 | 333 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 36 | Sounds good |
334 | 334 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 23 | 28 | 0 | 7 | 6 | Two principles: never fight a land war in Asia, and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Also, tried to anticipate that other players would adjust around the prior distribution, and then adjusted around their anticipated adjustment. |
362 | 362 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 3 | I saw that many strategies loaded up on boxes 7 and 8 (either focusing on the top 3 or the middle few), and that there was relatively less competition for 9 than for 10, so I allocated, roughly proportional to how much they contribute to getting me to 28, so I would win 9, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. I saw that most people who put more than me on lower values left their higher values completely empty, thus my thinking that I can win castle 10 with just a few folks there on all those who totally ignore it. |
363 | 363 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | Previous winner's solution was to focus on the middle part, while leaving 9 & 10 undefended and focusing on a select few castles. My assumption is that many others will try to copy this. Intent is to therefore leave the middle undefended and have a blanket defense for the others. |
378 | 378 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 23 | 26 | 31 | 0 | 6 | 6 | Poor intelligence |
385 | 385 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 19 | 21 | 0 | 25 | 26 | basically winged it, with some sacrificial 0s and some minor deployments to steal some weak castles. |
396 | 396 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | Third variation. Try to guarantee castle 10, get 18 more with 4 lower cost castles, ignore everywhere else |
397 | 397 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 19 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 38 | Win castle 10, and what appeared to me (after looking at last round stats) to be the least contested way to get 18 more points. Know that I lose to outliers who beat me at castle 10 (and realize an overcorrection from players who realize 10 was undercontested last round may be coming) and won't win many matches if I tie or lose in the middle, but think its okay to concede those rather than dilute strength with token opposition in castles I don't care about |
431 | 431 | 7 | 13 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | To win, you only need to get 28 points, so I focused on hitting that number exactly and put no additional troops on excess castles. I selected 9, 8, 7 and 3 as the castles I would intentionally forfeit, and sent troops to secure every other castle. After making that decision, every castle is equally important in order to win a battle, so I distributed my points with a number hopefully conservative enough to beat out a large number of opponents. |
625 | 625 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I need 28 points. I'm going to take a high risk strategy of only trying win the 7 least valuable castles. And I'm going to make sure I have more troops at everyone of those than our last genius military strategist. |
670 | 670 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 40 | High risk- high reward. Gotta lock in those big points then have enough of a chance to win the smaller castles to move past the 50% of available points needed to win. |
758 | 758 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Take all the low value castles and gain 28 VPs |
779 | 779 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | initially i had all bets placed on the top 4 to win 34-21 but then i realized more people will bet on the higher castles to rack up points but if i bet my points on the bottom i can win 28-27 which will gain me a victory. so thats exactly what i did, its a little riskier but it will gain the most points from the smallest castles |
796 | 796 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I realized that I only needed to have my troops collect 28 points in order to win. I then just gave up on the high worth castles, and spread my points among the lower 7 weighted by the points each castle was worth. This is a rather simple strategy, but I wanted to see how well it works. |
803 | 803 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 15 | 25 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | The way to win is to get 28 victory points. Generally, the data from the last round suggest that higher point castles are more competitive. This strategy involves investing all my troops into the lowest summing castles that get 28, which end up being everything but 10, 9, and 8. I placed them in increasing order with castle value. |
831 | 831 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 41 | 41 | beat previous winner; try best to win (#9 and #10), then win either (#6 and #3) or (#7 and #2) |
839 | 839 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | To win you don't need an optimal strategy just one that allows your opponent to waste men. This may not be a good strategy but it scores well against a 'normal' attempt to win the big battles. |
844 | 844 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | It could beat many of the lower troop submissions |
874 | 874 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Getting 28 so that I can always have a majority amount of castle points. |
888 | 888 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 32 | 61 | Game theory is hard. |
896 | 896 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Because I am hoping nobody else would send 100 troops to castle ten, because they want to have stake in everything, or something else. They also wouldn't be stpid enough to take this calculated risk, like me. It is also hard to amass 10 victory points by a combination. |
897 | 897 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Just to see what happens |
898 | 898 | 34 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | The top 3 castles and any other castle will win it. This strategy allows me to big bid on the high value castle. |
899 | 899 | 32 | 26 | 23 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | The deployment aims to get 3 out of four of castles 10,9,8,6, which always gives you over 23 points. I believe most people will spread their troops more evenly. |
900 | 900 | 35 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | You only need to win the top 3 castles and the last castle to claim victory (~51% of total points) and since these castles were way underdeployed last time, a big shot in the arm should be enough to take each of them. Since I am completely abandoning the rest, I should be able to over deploy the rest and win the castles that matter. |
901 | 901 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | Someone will try going for 10, just sending all their troops there. Heck, many people may try that. I want to guarantee to get castle 9, and hopefully split it among fewer people. |
902 | 902 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | i am guaranteed one point |
1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 32 | 22 | Good against the last round; great against everyone who optimized against the last round. |
3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 31 | Previous winner won 84%. Took the 90%ile of the previous distribution and subtracted the optimal even distribution of 100 soldiers/28 points. Found best values of 4/5/9/10, and matched those number. Added a couple to the lower numbers. Used the rest to spread between the others with 1 soldier |
8 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 1 | 33 | 29 | My approach: let `S` be all the strategies available, initialized to the strategies posted on github. Use simulated annealing to find the strategy that ~maximises `P(winning | S)`, and then add that strategy to `S` and repeat. Eventually we will find a strategy that is "good" against the empirical strategies and other optimal strategies. |
9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 28 | 30 | 28 victory points is the minimum threshold to win any war since there are 55 total victory points available. Therefore, it's unnecessary to win every castle. The top three castles alone aren't enough to get 28 victory points, as it falls short by just one point. So lower valued castles could be surprisingly competitive. Based on this, there's an inherent tradeoff between allocating troops in lower valued castles and allocating lots of troops in just a few of the high valued castles. So this set up focuses on the top two castles, the six point castle and the three point castle, which if captured would yield a majority of the victory points. In the event that someone neglects any of the castles, one troop is deployed to the remainder to ensure a victory in case certain strategies solely focus on a few castles. |
12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 31 | Found a strategy that beat the previous 5 winners, assuming that most people would copy the winning strategies, then I tweaked it a bit to maximize the wins |
15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 29 | I only need 28 points to win. All I need to do is divide my resources so that I am able to try to get that many points. So I focus most of my forces on the castles that have the most value to me and then get two other mid-range castles to supplement the points. I devote 1 to each of the castles that are not main targets because I figure that if someone is going to beat me on 9 or 10 that they may not have any covering 8, 7 etc. Instead of dividing the points, I think I can win them in these situations. |
29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 38 | Mostly random |
39 | 39 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 32 | I specified my deployment based on previous strategy but more concentrated. |
52 | 52 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 31 | 31 | Nothing flashy. Tried to assemble 28 from the castles that didn't get enough love last time around (2+3+4+9+10). Left a lone straggler at the others to punish the fools that leave castles naked. This strategy is incapable of winning big, but it wins by a small margin an impressive amount of the time. |
97 | 97 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 13 | 15 | 1 | 33 | 12 | I aimed for something that could do well against the naive strategies, the past results, and the people trying to learn from the last winner. I targeted castle 9, sacrificed castles 5 and 8, and had a good spread of the rest. I have a good chance of getting 19-25 points in the top 5 castles plus just enough of the lower 4 to give me over half the points. |
142 | 142 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 15 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 11 | Just kind of threw some troops at it, no big crazy strategy |
151 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 20 | At 55 total possible points, my goal was to get to >27.5. I chose the 3/4/5/7/9-point castles as my route, and allotted enough points to each that I could reasonably expect to win most matchups. Then it was about maximizing the scenarios where I didn't win those five. Castles #1 and 2 are only useful if I win two of my "unlikely to win" castles. For example, winning both would make up for losing 3, or winning 1 and 6 would make up for losing 7. So I abandoned them and put a few extra in 6, thinking that winning this one would make up for losing either 3, 4 or 5. Without doing more complicated math, I'm assuming my odds of winning castle #6 with 4 points are greater than winning any two castle with only 1 or 2 points in them, which is why I left castles #1 and 2 with 0 points. I ended up putting more than initially expected into castle #10, but it's a useful safety net against losing any of the castles below it in VPs, or even combinations of two like 7/3 or 5/4. I should probably re-jigger the safe, "base 10-ish" totals on most of my castles, which at 15 and 20 for many seem liable to be slightly outbid by savvy 538 puzzlers. But I'm at work and this is already a long paragraph. Cheers! |
155 | 155 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 26 | I put just 1 troop each at Castle 7, 8, and 9 so that I'd win against any zeroes, but otherwise ignore the castles that had the most troops deployed last time. Then, I tried to use the data to deploy my resources so as to beat as large of a population as possible (around 80%) from the previous data set. |
165 | 165 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 18 | 10 | 25 | 1 | 15 | 17 | Don't know |
191 | 191 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 1 | 16 | 14 | don't fight for 8 |
238 | 238 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 20 | Concede castles 7 and 8 which were most over-contested last time, then distribute troops in order to beat the average placement from last time at each other castle. |
281 | 281 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 27 | 32 | 28 points wins the game. The focus here is to win 19 points for the big 2 castles a majority of the time. Then find 9 other points. The easiest way (I think) is to win 2 out of 3 of castles 4, 5, and 6. That will always get you 9 more points. I threw an army at castles 2, 3, 7, and 8 just to cover myself against similar strategies where those castles are completely un-attacked by my opponent. |
304 | 304 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 23 | 27 | 1 | 5 | 5 | Strategy #2, trying to beat first 7 castles. |
310 | 310 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 23 | Forfeit 7 & 8 which were winners last time. Proportional for the rest, adding troops saved from 7 & 8 evenly. |
340 | 340 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 1 | 15 | 16 | I might be meta-gaming a little too hard, but I figured I wanted to win 10, 9, and 7 against the majority of players. I figured having above-the-curve bets on 1, 2, and 3 would help me win at the margins on matchups that would otherwise skew to even. The winner last time tried his hardest at 8, so I decided not to fight that and let that help me accrue a soldier advantage at other castles. This is more on feel than anything else -- no way to predict the meta except to use the past meta, but everyone else is doing that too and there's no way to predict how they'll do so. |
354 | 354 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 19 | 21 | 23 | 1 | 23 | 6 | I'm a lawyer in training which is to say my math skills are less than stellar. I figured the key was to try to choose a spot that had the largest incremental decline. For instance, last time adding three troops to castle 10 if you had none would have been a lot more valuable then adding 5 troops to castle 9 if you were already at 3. I then tried to compensate for the fact that other people would be doing this. |
391 | 391 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 15 | 12 | 22 | 22 | 1 | 6 | 4 | This is an update to my previous strategy. Turns out a brute force algorithm showed a far better strategy. The same rules applied: I used the previous entries as a training set to test strategies against, and chose the strategy that won the most games. |
484 | 484 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 13 | 13 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 3 | Random strategies generated and tested against previous dataset (I think it wins 1212 of the 1387 matches, a 87.4% winrate) |
514 | 514 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 4 | i just want to win i have no plan to rule |
524 | 524 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 20 | 24 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 10 was underutilized |
587 | 587 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 1 | 23 | 1 | 26 | 1 | trying to get number 9 |
699 | 699 | 11 | 11 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | We'll see? |
706 | 706 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 14 | 16 | 19 | 1 | 25 | 1 | Looking at the winning strategy, it appears that ignoring castles 9 and 10 largely paid off with a strong indication that 7 and 8 were good bets. Taking this a a level one strategy, I move to level 2 assuming that good players notice this. From there, I do some math and realize that dividing my forces reasonably among 8 castles is likely to beat both players who spread evenly and some players who bulk up on the higher value castles. An evenly spread player loses to me on all but castles 8 and 10, and a player who aims for the top loses even if they beat me in castles 8, 9, and 10. Aiming for castle 9 instead of 8 in this way makes the split with the 8-9-10 player 28/27 and also seems like the kind of twist needed to take this strategy to at least level 2, which may be as high as this rationally goes before it gets silly. |
761 | 761 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 19 | 25 | 26 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Varying the best winning strategies of last time to find an optimal solution |
768 | 768 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 35 | 40 | Ran an analysis on the data you provided through some rudimentary regression and decided this was the best strategy. |
792 | 792 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Tried to win the bottom 7 castles. |
820 | 820 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Fight where your enemy is weakest and take just enough to secure victory. |
826 | 826 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 14 | 31 | 31 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | I'm essentially just trying to beat the winner of the original submission at the same time as I'm beating the person trying to beat the original winner. |
851 | 851 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | I chose to go for the lower numbers because I thought most people would focus on the higher numbers |
852 | 852 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 16 | 0 | 26 | 31 | 1 | 4 | 2 | Total points in the game equals 55. You need 23 points to win. May be silly but I took a low combination of numbers to equal 23 in order to win. Contingent i win all the castle I want but I added an extra guy on 9 in order to hopefully win a couple by luck. I suspect this might be a popular strategy since the data has been released but oh well. |
858 | 858 | 6 | 0 | 16 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 46 | 1 | 6 | 4 | Random solution meant to help my initial submission. |
860 | 860 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 21 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 2 | Mind taking baby! |
866 | 866 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 26 | 51 | This allows me to take advantage of those who completely ignore 1-6, and I believe the n+1 strategy will outfox likeminded competitors on castles 9 and 10. By essentially giving up competition at castle 8, I am making myself much more competitive for castle 7. |
876 | 876 | 12 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 23 | 23 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | I looked at the last winner's strategy (1), found the strategy to beat the last winner by as many points as possible (2), and found the strategy to beat that strategy by as many points as possible (3). The goal is to get to 28 points as many times as possible, so I came up with an ideal strategy to do that, while also making sure that my troop deployment would beat 1, 2, and 3, as those would likely be popular picks. |
884 | 884 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 13 | 32 | 30 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Random solution meant to help my initial submission. |
886 | 886 | 12 | 15 | 20 | 24 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Wild Guessing |
890 | 890 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | by gut feeling. |
892 | 892 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 62 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 1 | Random solution meant to help my initial submission. |
893 | 893 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 91 | Why not. |
894 | 894 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 91 | HOLD THAT L!! |
14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 31 | 31 | Focus on 4/5/9/10 to reach 28 points and avoiding the likely heavy competition at 6-8. 31 creeps above the round 30s, 16 creeps above the round 15s and beats out those who are evenly spreading troops out amongst 1-7 and ignoring 8-10. 2 in 6-8 for possible ties or wins over 0s and 1s. |
38 | 38 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 24 | Relies on information from first game: 7 and 8 were popular, 9 and 10 ignored, abandoned castles got 0 or 1. |
43 | 43 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 12 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 | https://pastebin.com/LSXrjJJV |
48 | 48 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 3 | 2 | 32 | 6 | A variation on another strategy. |
66 | 66 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 29 | 7 | I assumed that most people would submit deployments that perform as well or better than the winner from round 1 (against round 1 submissions). So, I wrote an algorithm that generates a large number of winning deployments against round 1 submissions and then made those compete. The result is a deployment that beats the winner from round 1 and also performs well against other winning deployments. |
87 | 87 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 31 | 31 | This was one of the better performers in the simulations I ran. |
100 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 21 | This time we're aiming for a 10, 9, any 2 of <6, 5, 4> strategy. |
124 | 124 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 23 | Looked for holes and inflections in prior troop deployment data. Decided to commit at least a couple to almost all castles (except 1), to pick up cheap points, if opponent goes 0 on some. |
135 | 135 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 5 | 21 | 2 | 27 | 5 | DAW: Too many people cared about 8 last time. I'm aiming at a 9-7-5-4-3 combo most of the time, with some hedged soldiers at 10 and 6. |
148 | 148 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 27 | 2 | 5 | 7 | I just did a "natural selection" process on random walks beginning with randomly chosen top-50 (in terms of wins) strategies and taking smallish (1-3 troops shifted at a time) steps. I also did a few more walks of the winning-est strategy from the first competition. This one does the best among those (including the newly generated 'good' models) |
169 | 169 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 22 | 26 | 2 | 6 | 6 | Found the best strategy against the previous data set, then completed multiple iterations of improvement assuming the new data set will include similar strategies. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE TABLE "riddler-castles/castle-solutions-2" ( "Castle 1" INTEGER, "Castle 2" INTEGER, "Castle 3" INTEGER, "Castle 4" INTEGER, "Castle 5" INTEGER, "Castle 6" INTEGER, "Castle 7" INTEGER, "Castle 8" INTEGER, "Castle 9" INTEGER, "Castle 10" INTEGER, "Why did you choose your troop deployment?" TEXT );